As of 31st May 2017 the combined balance of unsecured loans advanced by David Sullivan and David Gold was £ xxx Interest accrued at the year end totalled £xxx and £xxx respectively on their total unsecured loans.

According to the club, it sold the Boleyn to a property development company called Galliards, and inferred that they had turned down higher offers, but that Galliards would preserve some of the history of the club.

However, there appears to be a third party involved called Boleyn Phoenix Limited.

Boleyn Phoenix Limited was incorporated in January 2014 and is listed as a property development company. It has two shareholders, Galliard Holdings Limited and Mount Pleasant Developments Limited.

Boleyn Phoenix Ltd had no sales in the first few years of trading, but in the year ended 31 March 2017 sprung into life and showed a profit of over £16.7 million.

Having made a huge profit, presumably on a deal for a property costing about £40 million and selling it for nearly £60 million. Boleyn Phoenix rewarded its shareholders by paying them a dividend of nearly £16 million.

Could this property have been the Boleyn Ground itself? It could be a coincidence.

Therefore Galliard Holdings would have received a dividend of nearly £8 million, as would Mount Pleasant Developments Limited.

Now clearly there could be many Vincent Goldstein’s around, but a quick bit of Googling brings one to the fore in terms of property development.

This particular gentleman (who may or may not be the shareholder in Mount Pleasant Developments) is connected to the Rock Group and is the cousin of the former Vice-Chairman of Spurs, Paul Kemsley, who some may know from ITVBe’s magnificent The Real Housewives of Beverley Hills, where his wife, Dorit Kemsley, is one of the stars.

According to West Ham the Boleyn was sold to the Galliard Group, which could perhaps have been Boleyn Phoenix. The Boleyn Ground was then rapidly sold to Barratt Homes.

The Land Registry says that the price paid for the Boleyn Ground by Barratt was £40 million, which begs the question, how did Boleyn Phoenix make a profit of nearly £20 million?

Well in Ayew's case it was obvious. But no evidence exists to counter it either. This is my problem with the 'Sullivan is every bad thing' narrative - it is very convenient for critics yet it seems to run counter to every explanation. You literally have to think that everything we've been told from the club, all its staff, and all the reporting around it, is a carefully woven fabric of lies - frankly no organisation is clever enough to create that. I think it's very unlikely, if not impossible, or at least needs evidence to be ever taken seriously as a narrative.

>>> Added to that, no manager at the club has ever done the contract negotiations- and our ludicrous wage structure is the bigger part of the problem for me.

The problem being, how do you get these 'big players' so many fans want without paying out the big wages? If we don't pay Hernandez that wage, he doesn't come here. And the huge majority of the fanbase and the media hailed Hernandez as a great signing. We pay far too much to too many players, that's for sure, but the answer to that has to come from the choice of transfers, Sullivan can't just invent a lower wage for Zabaleta or Ayew to take. What he should have done imo is say 'we cannot sign those players, because the contracts will eventually destroy us'. He didn't - he did the opposite. He placated Bilic imo, and without any vision or strategy to offer as an alternative - my guess is he actually bought into Bilic as a messiah type figure at the club. After all, Bilic should never have started this season as coach - most of us knew that.

I think the structure of the club has to change simply to offer Sullivan some guidance. He (or any other owner) is never not going to want to have no say - it's his business, and his millions invested in it, and his pride and status intrinsically linked to it. But I hope a recruitment staff is able to convince those at the club the downside of bad signings, and they are able to pull away from this ludicrous belief that first team coaches know how to buy players.

And I think the wages as reported actually offer a good deal of hope for the near future. If you shift most of that top wedge of players, of which two have already gone (Ayew and Fonte) you actually tidy up the wage structure very simply. Shift Zabaleta, Hernandez and Carroll in the Summer and the wage bill starts to look quite healthy with plenty of capacity for more sensible signings on wages we can actually maintain.

Westside - Perhaps we already have an overdraft that we have maxed out on. Many clubs are doing payday loans - or other forms of short-term borrowing - why are they not just using overdrafts?

Everton borrowed from Santander in December that was secured on the £13.75m that City will pay to them in August 2018 for John Stones. This is on top of all the loans they got from Bank of China in the summer. Swansea have done similar with Gylfi Sigurdsson.

"While clubs earn large revenues, they still need to engage in short-term financing....."But now deals are being propped up by guaranteed receivables revenue over a set period.This is either through TV rights or commercial sponsorship deals, such as those paid by Adidas and Nike to Manchester United and Chelsea respectively, which could make deals more attractive to clubs and investors.“I don't think there is anything to stop clubs securitizing receivables, even if you go outside the top six,” added Wilson. “It could really change the mid-table, the clubs from say 14 to eight. If they started to go straight to capital markets to raise funds, their opportunities to sign bigger players and pay more out in wages against a relatively secure revenue profile could really mix things up and make the league even more competitive, which would then drive up TV rights further.“Inside the top six, you would expect clubs like Manchester United, Manchester City and even Arsenal who are pretty savvy to be exploring that. Banks used to be involved in the football finance market, but this participation has fallen away since capital rules made it difficult to lend to smaller companies.

I see a side supposedly on the wane, Arsenal have just signed a new five year shirt sponsorship deal with Emirates worth in excess of £200 mio ...can someone remind me what we currently get from Betway ?

I don't reject the arguments put forward But why would a financially healthy club need to use payday loans ?

------------------------

Because the majority of the revenue comes from broadcasting revenues and a large part of this cash payment only comes in at the end of the season. However the bills and wages are spread fairly evenly throughout the season, hence they need to borrow some money until 'payday'.

Last season we got £121.9m from broadcast revenues and borrowed £30m on a payday loan that was paid back once we received the TV money. We're getting better as this season we've borrowed £25m. I would hope that as the cash position of the club improves that we can borrow less and less each season on the payday loans.

West Ham is run in the way I ran my company in the early years of first going into business. Under-funded because I had to as I was fully stretched.

OK I could never finance West Ham sized debts but it is much the same. Always looking to get money in so that bills can be paid. It was something I had to do as I had no more to invest. Eventually we got to 75 staff and PLC status but it took years of running on a shoe-string.

Gold & Sullivan choose to run West Ham that same way - on a shoe-string. If they devoted more of their assets to West Ham they could probably afford to fund it properly by clearing the debts. The current financial year should be more profitable than last so much of the indebtedness should be cleared although it will still remain under-funded.

I don't have a problem with WH making profits or G&S taking money out of the club. What I do have a problem with is them peddling the idea that an under-funded football club can challenge the top boys. It is nothing more than foolish bullshit but we will get there one day...

Has Gold mad any latest reference to capacity going up to either 60 or 66000? This appears to have gone off the radar and can only assume it’s due to Khan etc keen to use as leverage to change the club’s deal - to me this just confirma that Board is tight

You only have his word for that, and according to his word all the ‘successful’ signings were his idea and all the unsuccessful ones were somebody else’s idea. Also, as a habitual liar his word counts for very little.

Playing devil's advocate he maybe should have stuck his oar in a bit more, as he clearly didn't want Fonte, Snodgrass or Ayew. It seems to me Bilic had too much sway over transfers, and there were not enough checks and opposition voices to his choices within the club.

Like you I believe that come what may Sullivan will always stick his oar in. We know the results over a couple of seasons when he is the major influence and he is not likely to change his ways. I reckon that we're in for more of the same whilst he stays owner and holds the purse strings. Chances are that if not this season then sometime in the short term we will get relegated because of his parsimony.

Nobody at any club will ever have full autonomy in that role because of the sums involved. With that in mind, how much autonomy do you think Sullivan will ever give to anyone else over transfers? It seems to me that his fragile ego needs to be involved intimately in every signing except the ones that don’t work out, but that’s only with hindsight.

Basically the club needs to be smarter about its spending and smarter about its young player recruitment.

The common factor must be the Sullivan influence. If we cannot get the current owners to sell it would at least help if somehow Sullivan stepped completely away from player recruitment [ at all levels whether youngsters or established PL level ] and someone was put in place with full autonomy.